Hopefully they will be there this time around since it looks like at this point if we win we are in the playoffs and conference champions.

Don't forget the * next to champions, unless UCA loses to McNeese.

That's just absurd. UCA is NOT a member of the SLC yet because of the transition. You want to give the championship to a team that's not even in the league?

It just really sounds like sour grapes from a guy whose team that hasn't done well this season.

_________________

RiverRatCat06 wrote:

Shut the fuck up Larry.

Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:58 pm

patssle

True Bobcat Fan

Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 6:12 pmPosts: 659

Re: Don't Mean To get Ahead.... but

Quote:

It just really sounds like sour grapes from a guy whose team that hasn't done well this season.

Nope! I made sure to post those same thoughts before SHSU was eliminated from a championship* and playoffs - because I knew somebody would try that baseless claim.

_________________"Ya'll Ain't" - Grammar taught at Texas State

Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:10 pm

Robert_W

Moderator

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:29 pmPosts: 2803Location: Austin, TX

Re: Don't Mean To get Ahead.... but

The SLC said it themselves. UCA isn't elligible for a conference championship so Texas State will be the outright champion with a win next week and a UCA win over McNeese. If McNeese beats UCA then McNeese and Texas State will be co-champions and Texas State will go to the playoffs because we hold the head to head tie-breaker, so sorry Pat there is no * either way. If we win we are the champs....period end of story.

Don't have to do that...the SLC already did. Didn't you hear about the memo this past week that the SLC sent to UCA reminding them that they are transitional and the NCAA told the SLC that they couldn't give them a title if they weren't elligible for the playoffs. I agree it does suck for UCA but that's what both the NCAA and the SLC have told them so believe me they know.

Never said it didn't suck for them, but that's the rules. As I stated elsewhere, if somehow the SLC as a group were able to play... Cal Poly one year, and Cal Poly ended up beating everyone in the league, should we give them the title? Of course not. That's just common sense.

But I guess that's not so common for you, is it?

_________________

RiverRatCat06 wrote:

Shut the fuck up Larry.

Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:51 pm

MaximumBobcat

BF.com Elite Sponsor

Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 7:42 pmPosts: 5911Location: Fort Worth

Re: Don't Mean To get Ahead.... but

Seems like UCA and the SLC are both just a little pissed at themselves for being dumb enough to not read the rulebooks...I think Hammersmith over on AGS summed it up pretty good....

-----------------------------

Quote:

UCA and the SLC are DUMB. In fact, the first thought that popped into my head as I read the thread title was, "No s--t, Sherlock." Like it's been pointed out, this rule is almost a decade old. What's more, at least four schools and three conferences have dealt with this issue in the last three years. This isn't some obscure rule that no one's heard of before. When UC Davis was invited into the Big West, part of the contract was that they were not eligible to be conference champions to protect the autobids. When Northern Colorado was invited into the Big Sky, same thing. When NDSU & SDSU joined the Summit League, our presidents and ADs signed papers making us ineligible for the conference championships. Didn't anyone at UCA & the SLC talk to the BWC, BSC, & SL or the AD/presidents at UCD, UNC, SDSU & NDSU? It's not like these were uncharted waters as they were for UCD & UNC(the first schools to move up after the moratorium & rule changes). If I were the NCAA, I wouldn't have sent a letter because I never would've considered that a conference would jeopardize its autobid in such a ridiculous manner.

_________________Sincerely,MaximumBobcat

Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:55 pm

west_texas_Cat

BF.com Elite Sponsor

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:25 pmPosts: 3786

Re: Don't Mean To get Ahead.... but

Answer me this question. If UCA is not not a full member of the conference and cannot be crowd champion, then how can losses (or wins) vs them be count as "conference" losses? I think it should be an all or nothing deal? If that was the case then we would be 4-1 in conference with McNeese at 4-2 with their season effectively being over (from a conference perspective since they play UCA next week). Why is it not this way? If it was, it would help us slightly because then if we lost and NWST lost we would still go to the playoffs reguardless of the result of the McNeese/UCA game.

Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:43 am

MaximumBobcat

BF.com Elite Sponsor

Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 7:42 pmPosts: 5911Location: Fort Worth

Re: Don't Mean To get Ahead.... but

patssle wrote:

Quote:

It just really sounds like sour grapes from a guy whose team that hasn't done well this season.

Nope! I made sure to post those same thoughts before SHSU was eliminated from a championship* and playoffs - because I knew somebody would try that baseless claim.

Yeah sure, it was easy to say when your team had no realistic shot of winning the CC or AQ and you needed multiple dominoes to fall in perfect order for it to happen...

_________________Sincerely,MaximumBobcat

Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:47 am

west_texas_Cat

BF.com Elite Sponsor

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:25 pmPosts: 3786

Re: Don't Mean To get Ahead.... but

patssle wrote:

Be sure to send the UCA coach an e-mail to remind him he is "not in the league" and doesn't deserve a championship.

Quote:

"And you know what; we have cliched a share of the Southland Conference Championship! And noone's going to take that away from us!"

Tell him to check out NDSU from 2006 if you wanna feel sorry for someone. How about at 10-1 season with the only loss coming at Minnesota 10-9 and includes a win at Ball St. Argueably the best team in I-AA gets to have an early offseason because of this "transition" BS.

So you do indeed support the idea of giving a championship to a team that is not even in the league?

they are in the league..thats why wins and losses against count as part of our conf record in all sports

Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:52 am

Gilgamesh

SuperCat

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 9:44 amPosts: 140Location: San Antonio

Re: Don't Mean To get Ahead.... but

This has probably already been mentioned, but could UCA go in as an "at large"?

Gil

Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:04 am

Robert_W

Moderator

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:29 pmPosts: 2803Location: Austin, TX

Re: Don't Mean To get Ahead.... but

Gilgamesh wrote:

This has probably already been mentioned, but could UCA go in as an "at large"?

Gil

No. Because they are still in "transition" they are not elligible for the playoffs either as a conference champion or as an at large and because they are not elligible for the playoffs they are also not elligible for a football conference championship.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum